System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/07/2026 11:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20000533

EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.

The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.

If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20000535 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: "case staged as C" and "case staged as T3a"? See discussion.

Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20010164 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: If you only have a biopsy and not a resection of the primary site, can you code the size of the prostate nodule demonstrated on digital rectal exam? See discussion.

Example 1: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. TRUS-guided biopsy of left side of prostate shows adenocarcinoma. Right side biopsy is negative. Is size coded to 010 or 999?

Example 2: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. Bone scan was positive for metastatic disease. Is size coded to 010 or 999?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

You need path confirmation that a malignancy exists in the prostate before you can code the size of the nodule seen clinically.

Example 1: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 010 [1 cm], because the nodule in the prostate is confirmed as cancer by needle biopsy.

Example 2: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 999 because there was no pathologic confirmation of malignancy.

 Prostate N/A 2001
20031196 EOD-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description. Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. Prostate N/A 2003
20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

 Prostate N/A 2007
20160078

First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?

Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section.  Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.

Prostate First course treatment, Radiation Therapy 2016
20081014 Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: How is transurethral microwave treatment coded for prostate primaries?

Assign code 16 [Hyperthermia]. See the SEER Note on page C-747 of the 2007 SEER Manual:

Code Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy (TUMT) as 16.

 Prostate Surgery of Primary Site 2008
20140036

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is duct carcinoma of the prostate the same as an adeno/acinar carcinoma of the prostate? Specifically, does rule M3 apply when there is an adenocarcinoma of the prostate followed by a duct carcinoma of the prostate or a duct carcinoma followed by adenocarcinoma?

Rule M3 does not apply to adenocarcinoma followed by duct carcinoma of the prostate or vice versa. Rule M3 pertains to cases of adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma. These two terms, adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma, are equivalent for the purpose of applying the MP/H rules to prostate cases. See page 77 of the Other Sites Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf

 

Prostate N/A 2014
20180088

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion.

The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site.

Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries?

The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3.

For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue).

This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites.

 Prostate N/A 2018
20010117 Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.

For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.

 Prostate N/A 2001